Science

What is Philosophy of Science Good For?

The first of occasional columns on science and philosophy by Massimo Pigliucci.

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical
baggage is taken on board without examination.”
(Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, 1995)

I venture to say that few philosophers seriously question the usefulness of their own pursuit, and
philosophers of science are probably as self-confident as any. But the question rightly asked by the
public at large (when it actually pays attention to such matters), and in particular by scientists, is:
what is philosophy of science good for? I think there are at least three, somewhat interrelated, areas
of inquiry for a philosopher interested in science. These are: firstly, investigations into the very
nature of science; secondly, the analysis of key scientific concepts as used by scientists; and lastly
what could be called ‘science criticism’ – despite the obvious and often unwelcome
smell of postmodernism-gone-bad that such a label may carry.

I will eventually devote more than one column to each of these three branches of philosophy of science,
but let’s take a brief tour of the whole subject first, beginning with the study of the nature
of science.

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy.